Mr. CLARKE. Who prepared these amendments? Were they submitted to the committee?

Mr. MORIN. These amendments were prepared in the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. MCSWAIN. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania will allow, they were prepared more than a week ago and have been in possession of the committee for more than a week. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.

The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the next amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Page 23, line 12, insert after the word "sale," "until such shall be needed for the manufacture of concentrated fertilizer or its ingredients in no case."

Strike out the word "not" at the beginning of line 13.

Mr. SCHAFER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last two words.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair can not recognize the gentleman, as that is an amendment in the third degree.

Mr. LINTHICUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, first we ought not to include anything further in the bill authorizing the manufacture of fertilizer, and second, I think we ought to have here in the House a proper consideration of these amendments. The committee says that these are perfecting amendments. They may be perfecting amendments, but, I dare say, that there is not a dozen Members on the floor of the House who know what this amend

ment means or what the other amendments mean. We are not considering them in their proper manner. This is of vast concern. It puts out of business an industry that has invested $300,000,000. It takes from the Government $140,000,000 and turns over to the corporation to be formed $10,000,000, and it gives to the corporation $1,300,000 which the United States is receiving as income from Muscle Shoals.

Mr. DYER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the gentleman is not speaking to the amendment.

Mr. LINTHICUM. I am speaking to the amendment because it deals with the manufacture of fertilizer, and I am talking about the manufacture of fertilizer and the further extension of the power under this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wants to say this: The committee has limited debate to one hour. There are a number of substantial amendments being offered and under the rule are entitled to debate. Therefore the Chair feels that gentlemen speaking against any particular amendment should confine themselves strictly in opposition to that particular amendment. The gentleman from Maryland will proceed in order.

Mr. LINTHICUM. Mr. Chairman, we are considering the Military Affairs Committee's substitute for the Norris Senate Joint Resolution 46. This substitute coming out of the Military Affairs Committee has been reported favorably by the committee without ever giving its opponents an opportunity to be heard. It undertakes to place the United States Government into the fertilizer business in opposition to an industry which has some $300,000,000 invested in their various enterprises.

The fertilizer industry since the deflation after the World War has lost more than $200,000,000 in business, and is to-day just about able to hold its own, and is entering upon what we had hoped was an era of prosperity. It could compete with any Government enterprise if it had an equal opportunity, but it is not proposed to give it an equal opportunity, because the Government enterprise is to have, as I have said, $10,000,000 cash out of the Treasury of the United States which these very fertilizer industries by virtue of taxation helped to accumulate in that Treasury. The corporation is to have turned over to it $140,000,000 of Government property without expense, and without the payment of any interest thereon and without taxation.

The income now derived from water power of $1,300,000 per annum can easily be increased by long contracts to $3,000,000 or $1,000,000 per annum. All this property belonging to the National Government-to the taxpayers of the country-to the fertilizer industries as well as others, is to be turned over to this Government enterprise to enter into competition with individual producers. What is to become of all the stockholders, big and little, of this fertilizer industry? What is to become of their plants and equipment? Who are to employ their workmen, mechanics, clerks, managers, and so forth? Is not this the taking of private property without due process of law and without compensation? Is it not really the invasion of eminent domain by which property is taken without just compensation? If the Government is to enter upon this socialistic scheme in reference to the manufacture of fertilizer, if Congress will go that far in order to operate or employ Muscle Shoals, is it not a menace to all other private enterprises? Can the stockholders of any great enterprise throughout the country feel secure in their holdings when the Government is willing to take such a vigorous stand in reference to one of the basic industries of the country?

I am unalterably opposed to the Government entering into business in competition with private industries. I had hoped the Republican slogan, “Less government in business and more business in government," would appertain at least to the party which benefited by that slogan. This bill authorizes clear competition-operating with money furnished by the United States Treasury. To promote this competition the corporation is authorized to give away from 5 to 15 per cent of its total product. Muscle Shoals was organized for the purpose of producing nitrates in time of war, and in time of peace to produce nitrates to be used in fertilizer, and all additional electrical power was to be sold and the money covered into the United States Treasury.

The actual wording of the national defense act is thisFor the production of nitrates or other products needed for ammunitions of war and useful in the manufacture of fertilizers and other useful products.

There is not one word in there which would indicate that the Government contemplated embarking upon the manufacture of fertilizers. The idea I had in mind from this was that the Government would manufacture nitrates that could be sold by reducing the price of nitrates, but would help the fertilizer and used in fertilizer, which would not only help the farmer manufacturers by giving them a cheaper basic product.

Why apply the whole energy and plant to the manufacture of fertilizers, driving that industry to the wall, when under the defense act and the words "other useful products" the Govern ment might well enter upon other enterprises which perhaps would not do the vast injury the centering upon one commodity would do, but nevertheless would be just as socialistic and just as foreign to our system of Government as anything could possibly be?

This bill will convert the whole plant into the production of fertilizers, nitrates, and their by-products. If successful, it will drive the fertilizer industry to the wall, so that in peace times you will have produced fertilizer perhaps cheaper than the present manufacturers can produce it, because of the fact that you have the millions of money and property belonging to the National Government-because there are no overhead charges, taxes, or interest on the money invested-rather has it an income from the power itself in addition to the vast property turned over by the National Government aggregating $140,000,000, together with $10,000,000 in cash, a total of $150,000,000.

Suppose you make a great success by virtue of this Government property and Government money, and the fertilizer industry becomes a wreck and no longer able to compete. What will the farmers do in the event of war when the property is taken over for the production of nitrates for war purposes and the fertilizer industry has ceased to exist? A sad plight for the farmer under such a circumstance. I should pity him, indeed, because it would not be his fault; he has made no effort to have the Government undertake such a vast proposition, and as has been stated by one member of the committee, not a farmer has advocated the bill, nor did one appear before the committee asking for its enactment into law.

The opponents, the manufacturers of fertilizer, as I have said, are ingloriously called a Fertilizer Trust by the advocates of this bill, thrust aside and given no chance to lay their case, which involves their all, before the committee. Suppose the fertilizer man should criticize the Government operation, should demonstrate that it actually is costing the Government more to produce fertilizer than it is bringing. Suppose he should go so far as to say that his fertilizer is better than that pro

duced by the Government, and should bring expert testimony to show this to be a fact. Where would he land under the provisions of this bill? Why, he would be indicted, if found guilty of these acts, would be cast into prison perhaps for 15 years, or perhaps he would have to pay a fine of $25,000 for having advocated his goods and his processes in competition with that of the National Government.

There has been a constant effort put forth to have the people believe that the fertilizer industry is profiteering on the farmer, when the real fact of the matter is that for the past seven years it has been compelled to sell its goods at cost and many times less than cost, and to-day is receiving only 9 per cent above pre-war prices, while all other industries and producers, including agriculture, are receiving from three to four times that much increase on their prices.

I do not believe that Government manufacture of fertilizer, even though it should succeed and be able to make it cheaper than the industries are making it, will benefit many farmers. It can certainly not be sold to the far-off farmer, with the added freight rates, any cheaper than the local fertilizer man is selling it to-day. There is bound to be discrimination among the farmers, because the Government goods can certainly not be sold to a very far-reaching radius because of high railroad rates at the present time.

The fertilizer industry has endeavored to establish its plants throughout the country and along water transportation to save the very freight rates of which I speak and make short-distance delivery. I hold no brief for the fertilizer industry. I am interested in it because it is one of the vital industries of the great metropolis of Baltimore, because it is unfair to socialize one great industry, destroy its property rights, render its stock valueless, injure stockholders and owners throughout the country.

I am opposed to the bill because I am quite sure, even with the valuable property and rights transferred to it, it can not succeed, and means, in the vernacular, the throwing of good money after bad. My view is that this plant should be used in times of peace for the manufacture of power, and that this power should be sold to the highest bidder; that it should be so equipped that in time of war it can manufacture nitrates, rendering us independent of all the world. As we are compelled to import all nitrates, it might be well to manufacture nitrates to be used in fertilizer. I want to see this great property completed, but I do not wish to see its completion at the ruin of a vast number of our citizens. I am opposed to socialism, and I regard this as a great step in that direction. When Congress decides to become socialistic, when the day comes that we shall have embraced sovietism, God forbid, then socialize all industries; but do not set the precedent in that sad direction merely because we own some property and do not know what to do with it. Let the Government keep out of business except for governmental purposes.

We have created commissions for the construction of great buildings in this country; we have placed in the hands of the War Department millions of dollars for the deepening of our rivers and channels; we have established many departments and bureaus for the handling of Government business. Why not establish some commission to handle this valuable property and leave it to that commission to take charge of it and work out the problem in a business, governmental, and equitable manner, subject to the approval of Congress?

I sincerely trust this committee will be wise enough not to launch upon this half-baked, half-thought-out proposition, which sets a precedent for government in business. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the next amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for one minute out of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York asks unanimous consent to proceed for one minute out of order. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

interest of orderly procedure, and I wish the Chairman would join with me in bringing this about.

Mr. DYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand the regular order. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the next amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MORIN: Page 29, in line 2, after the word "or," insert "wrongfully and unlawfully."

The CHAIRMAN The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BYRNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask for recognition.
Mr. REECE rose.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will ask the gentleman from
Tennessee to defer, as the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
REECE), a member of the committee, is asking recognition.
Mr. BYRNS. Mr. Chairman, I submit a parliamentary
inquiry.

.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. BYRNS. These amendments which come from the committee, which are not being debated, can be as well offered after the hour's debate has been concluded as now.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. They are completed now, I understand. Mr. BYRNS. Why should the committee take up the time within this hour when vital amendments are ready to be offered?

The CHAIRMAN. The time taken in presenting the amendments is not taken out of the hour.

Mr. REECE. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk. The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. REECE: At the end of section 17, on page 26 insert: "Provided, That $2,000,000 of the capital stock authorized in this section shall be made available with which to begin the construction of the said Cove Creek Dam during the calendar year 1929: Provided, however, That the said amount shall be returned to the capital assets of the corporation out of the appropriations which hereafter may be made for the construction of said Cove Creek Dam."

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Mr. Chairman, on that I reserve the point of order. There is so much noise that I could not hear the reading of the amendment distinctly, but it occurred to me that it is probably subject to the point of order upon the ground that it makes an appropriation. I ask that the amendment be again reported.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will again report the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee. There was no objection, and the Clerk again reported the Reece amendment.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment is in effect an appropriation.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman from Illinois on the point of order.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. I make the further point of order that it is not germane to the section to which it is offered.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman from Tennessee on the point of order.

Mr. REECE. Mr. Chairman, section 17 provides an authorization which shall constitute the capital stock of the proposed corporation, and it further provides an authorization for the construction of Cove Creek Dam. The amendment provides that when the appropriations which constitute the capital stock of the proposed corporation are made, $2,000,000 shall become available with which to begin the construction of the dam. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman to the fact that his amendment relates to section 17, which is the section in the bill that calls for the construction of the Cove Creek Dam.

Mr. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have the amendment again reported, because it is not clear in my mind, due to the confusion in the Chamber, whether this refers to Cove Creek or gold brick.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, I object.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman from Tennessee to the fact that while this section per

has to do with certain capital stock and the making of that capital stock available to begin the construction of the dam. There is nothing in section 17 of the committee amendment to the Senate bill which in any way has anything to do with the capital stock of the corporation.

Mr. REECE. The section makes an authorization for the construction of Cove Creek Dam, and my amendment seeks to authorize that part of the construction which is authorized

in a previous section shall be made available for this purpose when so appropriated.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair again calls the attention of the gentleman from Tennessee to the fact that there is nothing in the section at all which relates to capital stock. It does authorize an appropriation, but there is nothing pertaining to capital stock. The gentleman's amendment clearly relates to the capital stock and makes $2,000,000 of the amount available for this purpose.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Would that amendment be germane to section 4, which provides for capital stock?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule on that point when the time comes, if it does come. The Chair is of opinion that the point of order should be sustained.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Mr. Chairman, may I add the suggestion that it adds to the powers of the corporation and should have come under that section.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order on the ground that it is not germane to the section.

Mr. REECE. Mr. Chairman, I offer another amendment at the same point in the bill, which should read

Mr. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman from Tennessee is out of order, because all amendments should be submitted in writing.

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman insists upon that point of order, the Chair must sustain the point of order.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk.

same into the Treasury of the United States in perpetuity, although such revenue justly and properly belongs to the State of Tennessee. It has been estimated that this revenue will amount to more than $2,000,000 annually. Tennessee is being asked to surrender this amount to the Federal Government for all the years that are to come without any resulting benefits therefrom.

I know that an amendment was adopted here a few moments ago which strikes out of this bill certain language providing for contributions from these dams to be built on the lower part of the river; but I submit to you, gentlemen, that that amendment amounts to nothing, because under the Federal water power act the Federal Government already had the right to make an assessment upon those dams for the benefit of the Federal Treasury. That language was mere surplusage, and its elimination does not affect the situation in so far as the rights and interests of Tennessee and her citizens are involved in this bill. Let no Member be deceived by this eleventh-hour action of the chairman in offering this amendment. It concedes nothing to the State. The point is that Tennessee is to be deprived of these possible revenues, and particularly of any benefits of the power generated at Cove Creek, because it is to be denied any right to have a voice in its location. Not only that, but the bill takes from the taxable value of the county in which this dam is to be located more than 54.000 acres of land which will be flooded, without compensating benefits.

Mr. BYRNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out sections 17 and 18 of the committee amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee moves to strike out sections 17 and 18. The Clerk will report his amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BYRNS: Beginning on line 1, page 25, strike out all of section 17 and section 18, ending on line 2, page 27. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. BYRNS. Mr. Chairman, if my motion prevails, it will result in eliminating from the pending bill all reference to Cove Creek Dam, in Tennessee, and the authorization carried in this bill for the construction of that dam.

Every one concedes, I think, that Muscle Shoals should be used primarily for the benefit of agriculture. I have been doing what I could ever since the completion of the dam to secure this result. It will be recalled that immediately after the war it was proposed to scrap the $17,000,000 that had been expended toward the construction of the dam and the more than $100,000,000 spent on the two nitrate plants. It fell to my lot as a member of the Committee on Appropriations to lead the fight in the House for the money necessary to complete the dam. We are all anxious to see some disposition made of this property belonging to the United States Government at Muscle Shoals, but I am unwilling to vote for this bill which has been reported by the Committee on Military Affairs without hearings and without previous notice to the delegation from the State of Tennessee, whose sovereign proprietary and revenue rights are invaded.

It proposes to take from the State of Tennessee its legal rights, and is nothing more nor less than a gross usurpation of those rights. It seeks to deprive the State of Tennessee of its sovereign right to control and direct the use of its own natural resources which are held by the State in trust for the people, and, if passed, it will result in depriving its taxpayers of millions of dollars annually in revenue for all time to come.

Let no Member who votes for it be deceived as to the true intent of this bill. In order to put the Federal Government not only in the fertilizer business but also in the power business it proposes that the Federal Government shall enter into the State of Tennessee without the consent of the State and build a dam on Cove Creek for the storage of water and the generation of power. The State is to have no voice in the regulation, control, and distribution of the power thus generated. Neither the State nor the industries located within the State are to share in the benefits of this power, because the bill proposes to build a transmission line to carry this power into the State of Alabama to be used for the benefit of industry located at Muscle Shoals and to be sold by the Government. It proposes to collect revenue from the increased power resulting at the lower dams in Tennessee and to pay the |

There never was a grosser usurpation of the sovereign rights of a State than is sought to be made under the terms of this bill. To carry out its purpose the proposed bill takes this particular dam out from under the express authority and States shall have a voice in the granting of a permit for power sites within the States and prescribing the conditions under which dams may be constructed. If these sovereign rights of Tennessee can be violated, as it is proposed to violate them here, then the same thing may be done in any sovereign State. It is not a local problem; it is a national problem. I appeal to the fairness of the House not to take this action until Congress has declared a national policy. [Applause.]

The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HILL], whose State is so greatly benefited at the expense of a sister State, admitted that such a national policy should be declared but he urged that this bill should be passed now and such a policy established at a later date. In other words, he made the astounding proposition that Congress take away the rights of Tennessee at this time for the benefit of his own State and later pass an act which would prevent such action in the future. All this is to be done under the guise of aiding navigation, when everyone knows that this is the plainest sort of subterfuge. You are asked to pass this bill which will legislatively declare this gross usurpation to be for the benefit of navigation and thus hamper and possibly defeat Tennessee in its effort to protect its rights in the courts. For everyone knows that it is the general practice of the courts not to controvert a fact legislatively declared even though it may be susceptible of proof that such declaration was not justified.

The passage of this bill will tend to delay water-power development in east Tennessee. The appropriations for the construction of Cove Creek Dam will depend upon future Congresses, and we all know how long such construction is frequently delayed, especially when it involves an expenditure of $37,400,000, which is the amount estimated as the cost of the dam. Pending construction, I think it exceedingly questionable whether private interests will be willing to build all of the lower dams until advised just what charges will be fixed and just what the policy of the Government will be toward releasing the water stored at Cove Creek,

The committee has made no report or estimate of the total cost of the plan proposed at Muscle Shoals and including Cove Creek, and Congress is being asked to approve this bill in the absence of approximate estimates as to the total cost. The other day in response to a question from me the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. WRIGHT] stated that the installation of a phosphoric-acid plant would cost perhaps $10,000,000, and that in his judgment no further appropriation would be necessary by Congress. In the hearings before the joint committee, however, Mr. Bell, representing the Cyanamid Co., represented that the whole expenditure for ammonium phosphate plants to absorb 40,000 tons of cyanamide in making the capacity production of ammonium phosphate would cost $35,000,000 without any working capital at all and that the phosphoric-acid plant would cost about $8,000,000. This represents the cost at total capacity, and it is, therefore, open to very serious question as to whether or not the committee has provided for the full capacity of fertilizer under a Government-operation plan by an authorized ap propriation of only $10,000,000. Congress should have been